Today they acted like a group of children who know they are going to be told off. Hiding, shuffling their feet, figuring out what the “right” answers are so they won’t get in trouble, and, most importantly, not narking on their mates.

Meanwhile, NZR (there’s no U anymore) gave a press conference (and released a statement) that feels so much like a research report you really didn’t want to do, but you made damn sure the bibliography was perfect.

In summary New Zealand Rugby has found that:

No complaint was laid with police and police are not pursuing either incident

The discrepancies between the reported accounts of both women, and those of the players and independent witnesses could not be reconciled in a number of key respects

The allegations of sexual assault, were strongly denied by players, and were not substantiated by the witnesses’ who did not see players touch, throw anything or pour alcohol on any women at either celebration

Nine independent witnesses to the performances were interviewed and gave statements that were considered genuine and credible

Players organised the end-of-season celebrations including the entertainment

Chiefs management were not involved in the celebrations or their planning and did not ask for details, but did advise players to be responsible

At both functions, some players were intoxicated to varying degrees, and some – designated as minders for those drinking – were sober

In summary of the summary: no one told us anything, the players backed each other up, so it didn’t happen.

But wait….!

…we are far from satisfied that players should not bear some culpability for the harm done to the game, to the Chiefs brand, and to their families

The whole incident has been incredibly disturbing and it is clear that poor decision making on a number of fronts has led to these players and Chiefs’ management putting themselves in a position of vulnerability.

So they did do something wrong. They hired a stripper. And for that they all get a “formal caution”. It’s unclear what that means exactly, or what would warrant another strike against that caution, or what the penalty would be?

It’s also unclear why simply hiring a stripper (a legal profession) is a problem. I assume they also bought alcohol, which seems like much more of a problem than a dancer. Much better people than me have written about the issue with the team hiring the stripper, I would like to instead focus on NZR.

Despite appearances NZR are not stupid. They know the reputation of the game was severely dented if not damaged. A censure of the entire team seems like an appropriate punishment to NZR. Something that sounds quite harsh, but really isn’t.

What they should’ve done is docked the Chiefs a point in next year’s Super Rugby. With the clear message that anything, even slightly out of line, will be met with the exact same punishment.

This meets all of the criteria of the current punishment – it punishes the whole team without singling out any players – with the bonus of actually doing something. One point may not sound like much until you realise that before the season even starts, you’re in last place.

There’s one other thing NZR needs to do: Lay down the law to every other team.

NZR/Chiefs in consultation with the NZRPA should look into the circumstances in which end-of-season celebrations take place (not only in the Chiefs region but in all professional environments) and develop a range of protocols to ensure that such celebrations are conducted appropriately and risk to reputations of players, employers and the game are minimised

Beyond the fact that this doesn’t mention risk to anyone other than players, employers and “the game”, it also feels weak. “We’ll develop a range of protocols” is not as bold as “we’ve got some protocols and here they are and if you don’t follow them then you lose points next season”.

For people in charge of a sport that gave us the term “sin bin”, they seem reluctant to set in place rules for conduct.

Do it, NZR. Come down hard. Put in place rules about domestic violence, assault, and sexual harassment. Get back all the fans you’ve lost and strengthen your ties to the ones you didn’t.

Because in New Zealand two things are at the top of the stats: rugby and domestic violence. This is NZR’s chance to start defeating one with the other.

(I have written to NZR to get clarification on the formal citation but so far the only response I had was “who do you write for?”, fair cop for taking such a long break I guess).

[Update: NZR got back to me and said the formal citation "goes on their record – so is counted if anything similar happens again". I have asked what 'similar' means]

Everytime we play France, everytime the referee is Wayne Barnes, everytime we play in Cardiff, someone will mention 2007. It was our nadir in terms of rugby, in some ways it was local minimum in terms of rugby support (the Springbok Tour being our rock bottom for that).

Since then we have won games under Barnes's control and won plenty of matches against France. In fact since that game we've only lost to France once, oddly it was in the very next game we played against them (Dunedin 2009). And we haven't lost at Millienium Stadium since.

The fact is, we worry. We're sports fans and we see narratives where there are none. We weave stories based on the small amount of facts that we have and we go with it.

I recently found, via the Wayback Machine, what I wrote in 2007 before and after the infamous loss.

Before:

Now, if you ignore the “points for” (and the implied try-stats), not a lot separates us from the French. And lets be honest, we played some terrible teams while France had to face the best defence in Argentina.

… both teams had roughly the same amount of points against. This is perhaps more telling…

…We also gave up less penalties than the French, which means cool heads under pressure, which is what you need when it comes to the final…

Let’s just hope (or pray) that we are not the Fish n Chip-Eating Surrender Kiwis.

After:

It is quite obvious from these stats that New Zealand actually won this game and that some sort of error has occurred....

This is because stats in rugby are almost meaningless. You can win games with less than 40% possesion and/or territory. You can wins games with fewer tries or fewer penalties or fewer tackles made. The breakaway nature of the game makes determining a winner from anything other than "points scored" incredibly difficult.

In fact the only stat that seems to have a correlation with the final result is the turnover ratio. Even then it's a weak one. New Zealand beat Georgia 43-10 with a turnover ratio of -14 and Australia beat South Africa this year 24-20 despite being -7 in turnovers.

These aren't easy stats to get at, so if anyone wants to actually do a few days of data entry and then analysis, please do!

Four years ago I was firmly on the Captain Tackles fan train. McCaw was everything we liked in player. Smart, fast, big, at the edge of the rules and a work horse. He shone in the statistics that we like: first to the breakdown, tackles, test caps. He is the stereotypical All Black, all stoic and shit.

It feels like so long since that World Cup and now I’ve got a problem and I can’t shake it. Sports and politics, man. Yeah yeah yeah I know. It’s my problem to deal with.

The more the All Blacks align themselves with John Key the more I hate them. Remember this:

I liked Dan Carter when he was an underwear model who helped us score more points than Australia. As soon as he has an ideology then he’s got something I can disagree with.

So a litany of “Hey John Key just showed up in our locker room for a post-game beer” photos, with Richie always in the middle, began to slowly wear me down. Then the politician I strongly disagree with is on the cover of Rugby News as the All Blacks number one fan.

In my head the idea of the All Blacks as a national team is slowly pushed out and now they are a National team.

I figured this would all slide away when the team finally took the field against Argentina. Then Richie, always playing to the edge of the rules, and often over them, reaches out with his foot and trips a player. I was watching ITV so there was no New Zealand commentary to soften the blow, he just played dirty.

Past Hadyn may have shaken his head but let it go by; present Hadyn couldn’t. My mind was filled with swearing and anger at a player I used to admire.

The All Blacks win over Argentina and I feel a little better, but I think I’ve realised that I’m comfortable with this team losing the cup.

Twitter automatically suggests hashtags when you start typing, so how did a clear typo become a highly suggested tag for such a big event? Well if the organisers want to blame anyone, it should probably be themselves.

If you’re wondering why so many people haven’t noticed what they are tweeting, it’s because humans have learned to read fast and you can still raed wodrs qiuckly even if there are small typos.

Upset

Upsets at the Rugby World Cup are rare. Japan’s game plan against South Africa was perfect: attacking the old players at a pace and saying “keep up”. Looking at that on the surface it seemed like they could beat anyone. But Scotland aren’t the same as South Africa, Japan had a short turnaround to the next game and Scotland had the advantage of seeing Japan play. I’m sure Japan will be back up for their next game though.

Seeing the celebrations after the game brought back strong memories of the final game Japan played at the last World Cup. JK’s team came away winless and after drawing with Canada. Fans in the crowd were crying, the Japanese media wanted Kirwan’s head and his soft spoken captain had to come to his defence.

The emotions after the South Africa game were raw and pure and the result of so many rabid fans with nothing to celebrate for so many years.

Tim realised in 2013, that the students he was teaching (10 year olds) had no living memory of a losing All Black team – this project is a way of reminding/refreshing ourselves of those memories – not just of the ABs, but of all the many teams and players that have been part of the rugby world cup since 1987.

Wellington is currently consumed with the toughest philosophical question ever: who is a real fan of the Hurricanes?

It’s a pretty fucking deep question. As tickets to the final sell out in unbelievable time are the real fans the ones who a) slept in the queue for tickets, b) got priority as season ticket holders, c) paid inflated prices for them on TradeMe, or d) complained online about who weren’t real fans.

Which is kind of funny in itself. This Government has painted itself into a corner as the “Rugby Government”, everything must be done to make rugby great! After all our PM is the captain of the All Blacks. He’s a real fan™!

I was on a bus after the election and overheard a young man recounting why he voted for “good cunt” John Key: “He went to heaps of [Rugby] World Cup games!” Motherfucker, I went to more games than he did and I paid the same amount of money for my tickets that he did, $0. But at least I was working when I was there.

Where was I going with this? Oh right, there’s no such thing as a real fan, a #1 fan or any other fake metric for determining who likes something more than someone else. Wellington does have a lot of fair weather fans though. Literally.

Watching the Hurricanes play in the summer is much nicer than watching them play in autumn or winter. The Caketin is a freezing cauldron of icy wind and very little rain shelter. Empty yellow seats everywhere. So I can totally understand why the numbers of people wanting to attend games would increase the closer you get to the final. And when have the Hurricanes ever been the in-form team?

The only other time they reached the final, no one saw them lose.

The tickets are so in demand because fans are hoping to see the Hurricanes in the final for the first time ever. pic.twitter.com/QKDxA4WKkc

“The Cricket World Cup is officially over.” That’s me quoting myself before New Zealand smashed England in a surprisingly short game in Wellington.

I don’t follow cricket, as many of you know, but it’s bit of fun to watch when we’re doing well and the games are short. So my reasoning for that premature statement on the Cup was based on the what the goal of any World Cup actually is.

World Cups are not about finding out which team is the "Best in the World", and they aren’t even about the more cynical goal of discovering which team is best at making it through a knockout tournament once every four years. World Cups exist solely to further the sport and rake in those television eyeballs.

Well the India versus Pakistan match in Adelaide brought in 1.5 billion viewers (estimated). That’s 21% of the world’s population watching a single sports event. Looking at the world population table, you aren’t going to get a significantly bigger audience for any other event ever (unless China gets really into football and then plays Brazil at the World Cup).

As for furthering the game, Ireland and Bangladesh have already had their boil overs against much higher rated teams. Of course at the Irish match a man was caught relaying info to a betting syndicate. Cricket is gonna cricket I suppose.

Back before the cup actually started I wondered aloud to a friend if the country wouldn’t respond well to a World Cup that we, most likely, won’t win. His response was that we actually were one of the favourites. I raised my eyebrow in reply. Had the “Black Caps aren’t very good” meme disappeared, literally that’s all I really knew about cricket. When NZ won a match it was a big deal because it was never a guarantee.